Bibles, Religion and other uncomfortable topics

[bloss]

Message withdrawn

Has anyone heard of the Amplified Bible? That's the one Joyce Meyer uses. (She's an American preacher - don't know if she is televised in the UK). She is always saying that it's a good translation but I don't think I've ever looked at it.

www.mumsnet.com/s/Talk?topicid=7&threadid=221&stamp=011116165024

Hope that works.
I have just spent half an hour reading this very interesting thread ( and it's the dead of night)
Bloss, hope you don't mind me asking, but who were the christian group on campus? Was it the Navigators by any chance?

Message withdrawn

Thanks for starting the thread, bloss!!
As far as modern music goes, I find the objection to it weird. I mean, in his day, Wesley was REALLY controvertial and modern! It was a change from psalms! I know the cult of stardom can be a problem, but it doesn't have to be. My BIL works for a big worship leader (Robin Mark) and a nicer, humbler bloke you couldn't meet.
I looked up in the intro to my own NIV last night and it says that the KJV was referred to during translation. Mind you, given the variety available, I think it does us good to read from different versions. I likek to read some things in the KJV, I also have an NIV, a Good News Bible and a NT in 'The Message' which I think is a brilliant paraphrase.
And, threeangels, what about kids? Do you expect them to read the KJV too. My children each have a copy of 'The Beginners Bible' and it's excellent for kids.

We have about 12 bibles at home, including the message, living bible, kjv, niv, nrsv (my fav.), my first bible, amplified etc. It's interesting to compare different passages, see the inferences etc. I personally like the new revised standard version - it has enough gravitas while being comparatively modern and also accessable.

Churches should have ALL types of worship: meditative, rousing, celebratory, adoratory etc. etc. different styles suit different people / situations. Does it matter? Although, I must say I do hate those 'la, la, la I really love you Jesus, yes I dooo' ones, sound like bad mid eighties rock from somewhere mid America! As long as the words are biblically compatible and Christ centred, not ME centred I think it's fine!

We have recently had a joint service for all the C of E churches in my town. It was lead by the Bishop and was to tell everyone what was going to happen in light of the vicar shortage. Our congregation usually numbers 20 on a good day so it was lovely to see around 300 people in our church. The children all took part in activities at the beginning of the service and then went off to Sunday School to make and do lots of exciting things. At the end of the service everyone had a lighted candle and we sang 'Walking in the Light of The Lord' (yes, some were dancing and clapping too). The whole thing made me very emotional and to see 300 'lights' was amazing. The more modern, happy hymns approach was much more enjoyable to me than the very old fashioned, slow hymns which are the norm.

Jasper

I think there is a conspiracy to stop me reading the thread you refered me to.

Every time I go to read it at home or work someone talks to me, gives me work or asks a question and I get side tracked.

I will try to read it though at a later date.

Thanks for posting it.

Hi Bloss, I almost was not going to continue with my reasons for my beleifs bEcause most people either dont want to understand or just cant and it can get frustrating sometimes. First I want to say that I dont know much abou the ESV but, My husband and I sat up and looked at some example verses and compared them to the KJV and they have changed some words around but the exact meaning is still there. Now this is from the example verses. I am not able to compare the whole bible. The info said compared to most other biles this is very accurate to KJV. Have you ever looked up info on bibles to compare? Have you ever noticed that all bibles are compared to the KJV? There is a reason for this. The KJV was the first bible translated into English. Bloss, do you honestly beleive its okay to change verses in the bible to fit mans taste? Do you feel it is okay to just leave what you want out all together. Many important verses have been left out. Until you read over and compare them both you will not be able to understand for yourself. A person can change just a word or two and change the entire meaning of the verse. Alot of people would not care as long as they can understand it. Whats the point if it is a lie and untrue. Doesnt make sense to me. My whole entire dh's side of family go to a pentecostal church and read the NIV. That was the first church they ended up in when they became christians. Thay have always beleived the NIV because it is easier to read. But me being a Christian for the past 32 yrs (from birth) and going to a church that has never changed what god says knows matter what new stuff comes out, I guess you could says knows better. We have my mil wanting info on the two bibles because she is now having doubts herself. I think she is just starting to wonder herself about the differences. I have so many verses to compare. I could be here all day. Let me give you a few important ones and let me know what you think. If you dont see the difference in your opinion then I will not give any more examples and Ill let this subject go. If you do and would like more just let me know.
Heres is the first example: (To me one of the disturbing of all) (KJV)Isaiah 14:12 KJV says,
HOW ART THOU FALLEN FROM HEAVEN. O LUCIFER...
(NIV)Isaiah 14:12 NIV SAYS, HOW YOU HAVE FALLEN FROM HEAVEN O MORNING STAR...
Since when was Jesus the one (morning star) who was cast out of heaven? This is said to be blasphemy. They removed Satan and put the saviour in his place. To me it is impossible to justify.
Another example: (KJV)Isaiah 9:3 KJV says, THOU HAST MULTIPLIED THE NATION, AND NOT INCREASED THE JOY...
(NIV)Isaiah 9:3 NIV says, YOU HAVE ENLARGED THE NATION AND INCREASED THEIR JOY...
Which is it? They increased or not increased their joy? We cant have it both ways in the bible.
Here is an example of a verse that was totally left out. John 5:4, FOR AN ANGELWENT DOWN AT A CERTAIN SEASON INTO THE POOL, AND TROUBLED THE WATER; WHOSOEVER THEN FIRST AFTER THE TROUBLING OF THE WATER STEPPED IN WAS MADE WHOLE OF WHATSOEVER DISEASE THIS HE HAD. This and so many more have been left out. How can this not make somone see the difference. Do you think God would make one bible and then totally disagree in another (contradicting himself) God only wrote one. Man has made all these others and decided to change things around a little and a lot. Given the reason, Its easier to understand. Id rather have a bible that is a little harder to understand (and learn it) then be reading untruth. In the KJV Revelation 22:18-19 it says: FOR I TESTIFY UNTO EVERY MAN THAT HEARETH THE WORDS (us) OF THE PROPHECY OF THIS BOOK, IF ANY MAN SHALL ADD UNTO THESE THINGS,GOD SHALL ADD UNTO HIM THE PLAGUES THAT ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK: AND IF ANY MAN SHALL TAKE AWAY FROM THE WORDS OF THE BOOK OF THIS PROPHECY, GOD SHALL TAKE AWAY HIS PART OUT OF THE BOOK OF LIFE, AND OUT OF THE HOLY CITY, AND FROM THE THINGS WHICH ARE WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK. Dont you think that this is self explanatory. If this makes God angry shouldnt it make us angry?

Here are some verses they felt like leaving out. Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14
Mark 7;16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28
Luke 17:36, 23:17, John 5:4
Acts 8;37, 15;34, 24;7, 28:29
Romans 16:24, I John 5:7
What kind of bible leaves out entire verses?
Here is an example a changing of one simple word that changes the entire meaning of the verse.
2 Samual 21:19 NIV says, IN ANOTHER BATTLE WITH THE PHILISTINES AT GOB, ELHANAN SON OF JAARE OREGIM THE BETHLEHMITR KILLED GOLIATH THE GITTITE, WHO HAD A SPEAR WITH A SHAFT LIKE A WEAVERS ROD...
(KJV) says, AND THERE WAS AGAIN WITH THE PHILISTINES; AND ELHANAN THE SON OF JAIR SLEW LAHMI THE BROTHER OF GOLIATH THE GITTITE, WHOSE SPEAR WAS LIKE A WEAVERS BEAM... Have you noticed that in the NIV it says that David killed Goliath but it was Elhanan who killed Goliath and this is shown in Chronicals 20:5. Just another conflict with itself.
Here is an example of half of a verse left out (a very well known verse) lUKE 4:4 (KJV) says, MAN SHALL NOT LIVE BY BREAD ALONE, BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD. In the NIV they left out BUT BY EVERY WORD OF GOD. I guess its just another thing they did not feel like putting in their bible. I have tons and tons more of problems with this bible alone (not to mention others). Its too hard to list too much more at this moment. As you can see of a small portion that we see words being left out to entire verses. We see errors of misquoting prophets, to removing Satin and putting Jesus our saviour in his place. There are many more errors then this. Do you think the NIV is really the Word of God? The "HOLY BIBLE" I write this to help others understand not to criticise. This to me is my purpose in this life. I will answer more about the music later today. This is already so long.

threeangels - are these deliberate distortions of the original, or just mistakes. Has anyone challenged the publishers about these 'revisions'?

Mooma, I honestly dont know if these are deliberate mistakes but I did read that the people making these bibles are reading these verses and deciding what they feel they mean to them. Then they change them to their thinking. I dont see how this is right. No matter what the intention is deliberate or whatever else the bible has been changed. I feel in my heart this is the work of Satan in this world. He does whatever he can to draw away from Christ. He does it so smoothly that people dont notice the problem. I mean that things in the world change little by little. Hes the reason this world is the way it is. Psalms 12:6-7 says, The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. There are way too many things wrong in the NIV to think they might be innocently mistaken. There are many people ( just as human as you and I) out there trying to take followers of Christ away from the truth. Thats nothing new. What better way then to change the bible around. This is why we have so many cults and cult leaders. Crazy religions. Crazy beleifs. Its all a matter of brainwashing. I have had many tell me they did not realize the full truth until they went to a God fearing Independent Fundemental Baptist church who preaches from the KJV only. Not saying there are not good christians in other churches because there are.I know plenty myself. Its just that they are beginning to become less conservative and a little more liberal like the world. This will only get worse as time goes by. Satan would not be doing his job if it didnt. Some churches you cant even tell a difference from them and the world. Its the strong ones who stay firm on their beleifs. LianMums in this thread mentioned about a women who is a preacher and the bible says women are not to preach in the church. Teach childrens yes. In other words they are not to be above man in the church. ( running a church). Why so many dont see this I will never know. God says this is not their place in a church. I hate to go on and on .

Simonhoward - THERE IS! It's THE DEVIL!

(that was a wee joke for all the christians)

Ill probally just let things go at what i have said. Most people but a handful in this world want to preserve the truth of the bible. We all have to answer to God one day at what we didnt like or felt like changing about Gods word. The world wants things to their liking and not what God intended for us. As far as the music people just are more concerned abou the beat then honoring the world. The bible says we are not to go on emotions and feelings but the word of God. Manna, why do you listen to any Christian and mock songs of praise. Many in Jesus'time died and went to hell because they mocked the saviour. You just dont sound like someone who loves the Lord.

Sorry meant to say "Word" in my message below

Surely any bible read "in translation" rather than the original language is going to be subject to the interpretation of the translator? Who can say with all certainty that the KJV is a pure and accurate translation and others are not? I can not believe that nuances of meaning were not lost or that no misinterpretions crept in. After all, the original texts are thousands of years old.

On a simplified level, try to imagine someone translating, from English, the word "body": this can mean torso, corpse, the majority, an organisation, an amount.... without placing their own interpretaion on it surely it's impossible.

This doesn't explain whole chunks being missed out of course and this limits the authenticity of the other version you mentioned (NIV?)

I want to add that I'm not a religeous person. I did go to church/Sunday school up to about age 13 but do not go any more. I'm looking at this from a purely practical point of view.

SoupDragon, King James was the first bible translated to English. The motivation of the KJV translators was to take each word and phrase of the origina languages and change it into English equivalency. When they came across a prophecy or a doctrine they did not understand they translated what God said it meant whether they understood it or not. Their purpose was to follow the meaning of the original. The problem with the modern bibles of today is that people are trying to translate them into what they think it means from the original KJV. The KJV translators translated from god and not on what they thoughtit meant. We can only assume because God said he would preserve his word and that he guided them in their efforts.

Threeangels, well you have definitely given us plenty to chew over. I did scan through the internet site you mentioned re. the NIV and it was interesting reading. I looked up some of the passages you have mentioned in my NIV (yes, that is my day-to-day bible, but I do have other versions for reference) and many of the verses that you say are missing are mentioned as footnotes, so they are not entirely absent. Why do you consider the KJV to be THE one and only authorative version, is it because it was the first to be translated into English from the Hebrew/Greek? I've found a site which may be of interest to you which says that the numerous Greek manuscripts used by the scholars to translate from the Greek to English (KJV) were incomplete and there are in fact words ADDED to the KJV that weren't in the original Greek here

I do agree with you that the KJV is an excellent version of the Bible still most definitely relevant for today, but it cannot be right to disregard all versions since, when the KJV clearly isn't 100% accurate to the Greek either. But then again I don't think it's so much whether a particular version is word-for-word but the meaning behind it, and there are so many words in Greek that that have more than one meaning and the true feeling behind the word in a particular paragraph can be lost in the translation to English.

And what of the millions of people saved over the world through hearing the gospel preached or reading scripture from non-KJV of the Bible?

Can you also explain to me why you believe you were a Christian from birth, or perhaps you meant that you were brought up in a Christian household from a baby and committed your life to Christ at a young age?

Threeangels,

Which Bible? Whose God? What word?

The Christian church's bible was mostly written, originally, in Greek. So your god was a Greek, right, if the words are his?

There are millions more non-Christians than Christians in the world and the arrogance of this line of thought makes me SO ANGRY.

Jodee I feel it is the only true authoritive version because it was changed from the Hebrew and greek language by Gods translators. Like i said before God guided them on how to rewrite it. I mean what they did not understand themselves. All these other bibles are from everyday peoples thoughts and has nothing to do with Gods inspiration. I cant say i know every single bible in the world. I can only say that so many others disagree with each other in meaning. This is why its best to stay with the KJV and like Ive said is the one inspired from gods thoughts. If we cant beleive that then why beleive anything of God? I uderstand what you are saying about being ok if words are changed just not the meaning. I am not a pro of knowing what other bibles say but in the case of the NIV the meaning has been changed many times as i said earlier in this thread. How do you feel about the verse i quoted about Jesus being thrown out of heaven. Yes an error can happen but thats not the case here I beleive since many meanings and verses have been changed. I think that this is the most reworded bible that i know of out there. Im sure theres others too. I dont understand why people would want to read any bible if there are any things changed. This all circles around what God told the translators the verses each meant.

Janh, Its everyones choice to beleive the bible or not. Its not really just that. The bible was made so that we would read it and learn from it and so we would put our trust in christ alone for our soul salvation. Everyone has that choice to beleive. People dont want to beleive. Its right there infront of them and they dont care to understand. If most wanted to preserve the truth we wouldnt have so much sin in this world and i dont mean everyday sin we committ. The world is falling apart and pulling away from God and the bible not going towards god. How can most people be upholding the bible at the same time. Years ago they did now its fight against gods people and Satan. Yes there are more non christians in the world and most dont preach the gospel. Dont want to say any specific religions. But most others dont preach. A christian is one who is saved and has apersonal relationship with him. Lots of people go to church, read their bible, and beleive in god but its a Christian who excepts christ into there heart and tries to do their best to serve him. Anyone can be a Christian if they are saved by Gods grace which is his gift to us.

threeangels - Thank you for your comment regarding my commitment to Christ and my faith - much appreciated! On the contrary, what I was commenting on was the self centred worship songs that DO NOT (if you read my message correctly) centre on the word of God and a right balance of relationship between us and God: He is the 'I am that I am', not some high school sweetheart. Intimacy and reverence can be expressed in worship which is thoughtful and deeply personal, but to turn worship into an almost secular love song in order to allow people to enter into some created (not spirit given) euphoria is not what I believe worshipping to be about. I have been involved in some very Charismatic C of E churches in my time, and enjoyed all of them. However, these songs are ones that come from my own church, not someone elses. I am criticising a fault from within my style of Christianity, not others. And at no stage did I criticise those that sing these songs, just the fact that the leadership who chose them to sing feel they are an adequate expression of our relationship with God. I prefer not to judge other's faith without proper knowledge and relationship with them first, unlike you.

Manna I am a sincere christian and apologise from my heart if I took your message the wrong way. As you can tell this subject is such a sensitive one. I dont want all my messages to come of as I am downing everyone elses feelings and beleifs. Its that sometimes things said can get carried away. I feel quite bad about my statement about you and do want to apologize again. Im really not a rude person. Sometimes people can say things without really thinking. Hope you understand.

Well i guess I will not give anymore opinions in this thread. I guess you can say its making me into a person Im not. Thankyou for sharing your opinions and God Bless.

manna you are not alone in disliking that kind of worship song, usually sung over and over again. I personally LOVE singing, and sing in a choir but I too just don't feel comfortable with a lot of the modern praise/worship stuff of the type you refer to.
I far prefer the old rousing hymns (Thine be the Glory, How Great Thou Art to name a couple of stoaters)but understand that is just a personal preference.
Threeangels, please don't stop posting yout thoughts/beliefs. I have cut and pasted your comments on the NIV and sent them to my Dad who is big on theology as well as a hebrew and Greek scholar...I will let you know if he has anything to add to the discussion

This sort of subject is bound to get controversial as so many of us have our own beliefs and opinions and of course we all think that we are right and others are wrong!

Bloss - I am LisaV but changed my nickname when friends and family started searching Mumsnet for my name and reading all my postings. So far I don't think I've been spotted yet....

This is certainly an interesting debate. I am a Catholic but am having Bible Study classes with the Jehovah's Witnesses, as well as occasional visits from the Mormons and a lot of internet searching to back-up my own religion. I used the Good News Bible, but the Witnesses have their own version which creates problems. For instance on the subject of The Trinity, in John 8:56-59 Jesus calls himself 'I Am' equating himself with Jehovah God of the Old Testament (Ex 3:14), which for many Christians makes up part of the argument why Jesus, God and the Holy Spirit are one, yet in the Witnesses version of the Bible Jesus does not say I am. This example is one of countless mis-translations that have helped set up lots of different branches of Christianity.

I would be very interested to know exactly which version has the most claim to being the most accurate. Although as the Peter to the Romans said (14:1-), it doesn't matter how differently we worship, so long as we all worship the same God. That's why the Witnesses will never convert me, I'm far too ecumenical!

As far as modern music goes, the same principle applies, so long as they are worshipping the one true God, who cares what they sing and to what music? It may not be to our taste, but if it helps them in their worship who are we to argue?

Manna, I know I said I would not post again but I wanted to ask you if you meant you did not care for christian rock type musics or the more gospel type. I dont know if i understood in that way.
Jasper thanks for taking an interest in my opinions. I just feel like an outcast at this point in this thread. I know i cant change peoples thinking if they dont want to. I just thought i could share my beleifs and that i could help someone else. I really feel like such a jerk in this thread.